|
You just keep changing the subject!
|
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message ... In article , Doug Kanter wrote: She didn't say "Christians". She said "the religious right". Right. All Christian Republicans. Sorry, the "good ******/bad ******" distinction didn't work 50 years ago, either. Bigots are bigots, whether they make bigoted statements about race or religion. billo But....I know Christians who don't meddle in other peoples' business. Maybe THAT is the distinction, not the names we use for various groups. If a name is necessary, perhaps something like Obsessive Obnoxious Missionaries would do. When we hear the word "missionary", we think of religious zealots raping cultures in third world countries. However, they try and do it here, too. They can't see that some people get along just fine without them, thank you. |
"Vox Humana" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Vox Humana" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Vox Humana" wrote in message ... "Sheila" wrote in message ... dykerider wrote: "Helen Crames" wrote in message news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01... Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control? Helen Not if the government pays for it. Why should the government pay for it? Its a red herring argument. It appeals to people who want to denigrate what they perceive as a "welfare class." While most people on public assistance are white, "welfare queen" (i.e., "the government pays for it") is code for "unmarried, black woman with children." While I know that OP will strongly protest, that statement has racist as well as classist overtones. It also tries to assert that the government SHOULDN'T" pay for a legal medical procedure because it is against a particular religious point of view. The neo-conservative agenda doesn't accept the role of government in any way that doesn't involve the defense industry or war. Therefore, this is a trifecta of insults. The NeoCons don't want the government paying for abortion because it acknowledges the existence of sex for purposes other than procreation. Uh oh. They also see abortion as a way to dodge a bullet. The would rather see a child born into a situation where they are not wanted or where there are too few resources to adequately provide for their health and welfare. The child would be a constant reminder to them and everyone else of the parent's "immoral" acts - a modern equivalent to the scarlet letter. The abortion derails this scheme. Yes - I know someone who thinks this way. He says the evil mother wouldn't be in such a situation to begin with if she had "proper morals". When I remind him that an otherwise non-evil mother could be the victim of a failed condom, he says the solution is abstinence, but that the evil mother is probably addicted to sex and wouldn't consider abstinence as an option. Yes, this same person probably worships Ronald Reagan who had a child with Nancy about 5 months after they were married. SIN!!!!!!!!!! |
In article , Sheila
wrote: You just keep changing the subject! What's up with so many RED cars in those autombile ads? -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
"Sheila" wrote in message ... You haven't answered the question, 'Why should the government pay for it?' For the same reason the government pays for other medical procedures, like hip replacements, or medication for childrens' ear infections. However, I'll add this: The same government should also pay for health education which would help minimize some health disorders, and said education should be completely factual & not influenced by church committees. So you believe in taking from one group to give to another, even to the point of taking innocent lives. Two separate issues. "taking from one group...." refers to who should pay for ALL medical procedures, including setting broken bones, eye exams and abortions. Because of the economic structure of this country, there will ALWAYS be people who cannot afford health insurance, so you'd better get used to the idea unless you have a better solution. What do you suppose a hotel room would cost if the maids were paid $35,000.00 per year? How about the lower paid kitchen staff in restaurants? Are you ready for an $11.00 hamburger at your typical diner? How about a 3 lb bag of carrots for $8.00? As long as menial work needs to be done, the government will have to pay for health insurance for millions of people. "Taking innocent lives" is not connected with the financial issue. You either accept government supported health care IN GENERAL, or you don't. My ex-wife's Unitarian church ran a series of sex ed classes which were very explicit. They honored parents' wishes through a real high tech scheme which involved typing and printing things on paper - quite revolutionary. All parents were given VERY detailed copies of each week's lesson plan so they could keep their kids out of certain classes if they wished to do so. Why couldn't public schools do this, rather than have the typical all-or-nothing wars which seem to be the hobby of the fundamentalists? Well, when I grew up, parents taught their children about sex. I think that is where it should be taught today too. Let schools teach real subjects. SOME parents teach their kids about sex. Of that group, some are idiots and teach their kids things which are simply incorrect. Not the morals, but the scientific facts. That's how you end up with unwanted pregnancies. You can't scream about abortion *and* try to stamp out information which will help lower the abortion rate. Sorry. It's immature to think that way. |
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote: But....I know Christians who don't meddle in other peoples' business. Maybe THAT is the distinction, not the names we use for various groups. If a name is necessary, perhaps something like Obsessive Obnoxious Missionaries would do. When we hear the word "missionary", we think of religious zealots raping cultures in third world countries. However, they try and do it here, too. They can't see that some people get along just fine without them, thank you. The one & only place outside of a church where you're GUARANTEED to have 100% Christians is a Ku Klux Klan meeting. That's something Christians should always bare in mind when noting that SOME christians aren't such racist mofo gits, as it's just one reason that mistrust of christianity-motivated politicking is not to be trusted as even marginally decent. As for missionary types. Had a couple mormons on my front porch two weeks ago who refused to leave. I was being polite in asking them to leave, & they took the polite tone or the refusal to just slam the door as an invitation to stay & keep jabbering at me in the most offensively religious terms -- & I note this as someone who collects religious texts of all faiths & know a great deal about most of these ideologies. If these had been homeless chaps instead of mormons, being as aggressive asking for spare change as these guys were pitching religion, they could actually be arrested. They kept trying to get me to engage them in some kind of religious debate, & the more I refused the more they insisted. Not until I narrowed my eyes & alluded to them as "trespassing mother****ing gits" did they finally catch my meaning & go away. A week later, another pair of Mormons peered in at my open door & called for my attention. I refused to go to the door, but called back at them from the kitchen to put this address on their "don't bother the godforsaken Jews' house" list. One of the chaps actually said, "Okay," & they left. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
Doug Kanter wrote: "Sheila" wrote in message ... You haven't answered the question, 'Why should the government pay for it?' For the same reason the government pays for other medical procedures, like hip replacements, or medication for childrens' ear infections. However, I'll add this: The same government should also pay for health education which would help minimize some health disorders, and said education should be completely factual & not influenced by church committees. So you believe in taking from one group to give to another, even to the point of taking innocent lives. Two separate issues. "taking from one group...." refers to who should pay for ALL medical procedures, including setting broken bones, eye exams and abortions. Because of the economic structure of this country, there will ALWAYS be people who cannot afford health insurance, so you'd better get used to the idea unless you have a better solution. What do you suppose a hotel room would cost if the maids were paid $35,000.00 per year? How about the lower paid kitchen staff in restaurants? Are you ready for an $11.00 hamburger at your typical diner? How about a 3 lb bag of carrots for $8.00? As long as menial work needs to be done, the government will have to pay for health insurance for millions of people. There are not as many uninsured people as you believe. "Taking innocent lives" is not connected with the financial issue. You either accept government supported health care IN GENERAL, or you don't. I don't accept the government paying for abortions on demand. My ex-wife's Unitarian church ran a series of sex ed classes which were very explicit. They honored parents' wishes through a real high tech scheme which involved typing and printing things on paper - quite revolutionary. All parents were given VERY detailed copies of each week's lesson plan so they could keep their kids out of certain classes if they wished to do so. Why couldn't public schools do this, rather than have the typical all-or-nothing wars which seem to be the hobby of the fundamentalists? Well, when I grew up, parents taught their children about sex. I think that is where it should be taught today too. Let schools teach real subjects. SOME parents teach their kids about sex. Of that group, some are idiots and teach their kids things which are simply incorrect. Not the morals, but the scientific facts. That's how you end up with unwanted pregnancies. You can't scream about abortion *and* try to stamp out information which will help lower the abortion rate. Sorry. It's immature to think that way. No, it's not immature to thing that way. Sex education at school seems to encourage sexual activity, not just educate. It makes it much harder for girl's to so 'no' to a guy today. |
In article ,
Vox Humana wrote: You are under the mistaken assumption that the religious right has some monopoly on Christianity. No, bigot. billo |
In article ,
paghat wrote: The one & only place outside of a church where you're GUARANTEED to have 100% Christians is a Ku Klux Klan meeting. Well, no. And the primary force combatting the KKK was Christian. Antichristian bigots like to forget that Martin Luther King was *Rev.* Martin Luther King. billo |
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message ... In article , Doug Kanter wrote: She didn't say "Christians". She said "the religious right". Right. All Christian Republicans. Sorry, the "good ******/bad ******" distinction didn't work 50 years ago, either. Bigots are bigots, whether they make bigoted statements about race or religion. That's why Graham, Robertson and Falwell were identified as bigots! boxer |
In article , (Bill
Oliver) wrote: In article , paghat wrote: The one & only place outside of a church where you're GUARANTEED to have 100% Christians is a Ku Klux Klan meeting. Well, no. And the primary force combatting the KKK was Christian. Antichristian bigots like to forget that Martin Luther King was *Rev.* Martin Luther King. billo And bad people who try to coopt the ghosts of good people to their causes hate to note that Martin could & did work well with Jews, agnostics, & all kinds of people, & was poiitically inspired by a Hindu. Everyone from the suffragists in Texas to the negro militia of Georgia fought the KKK, but these few-in-number activists bucked a system in which "good" christians in general did nothing, & the KKK relied on that to thrive. It's why for over 100 years it was not possible for southern courts to find a white man guilty of killing a black person. It remains purely & simply a fact that the one place outside a church you're GUARANTEED to have 100% christians is a Ku Klux Klan rally. You can boast that the black guy they hung that day got nabbed leaving his Baptist church, but that rather evades the point to the highest degree of malice. I'm left waiting for a classier example of where exclusively Christians turn up. Whatever some good Quakers might be doing that's way nicer than that doesn't change the above reality one whit. And even when looking at a decent Christian movement like the Quakers, that doesn't seem ever to make its way into political office. Our last Quaker president was first & foremost a crook in office, who built his career on a foundation of killing a couple Jews cuz they were commies, so that he, Nixon, made his good pal & closet-fag Joe McCarthy seem cuddly by comparison. Separation of church & state is a good idea. Too bad our present stinko president doesn't think so. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message ... The message from "Doug Kanter" contains these words: "Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message ... My conclusion: Your civilization is quite advanced. You also gave the world Monty Python. We've advanced civilisation a whole lot more since then..wait till you see Big Brother :-( Yes. I've heard. You people need to get your guns back before it's too late. You people shoot televisions? We just push the off button. Janet Hmm. When you said Big Brother, I thought you were referring to your interesting government, and suggesting it was further along the dictatorial spectrum than ours. You're talking about a TV show? |
"paghat" wrote in message ... In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote: But....I know Christians who don't meddle in other peoples' business. Maybe THAT is the distinction, not the names we use for various groups. If a name is necessary, perhaps something like Obsessive Obnoxious Missionaries would do. When we hear the word "missionary", we think of religious zealots raping cultures in third world countries. However, they try and do it here, too. They can't see that some people get along just fine without them, thank you. The one & only place outside of a church where you're GUARANTEED to have 100% Christians is a Ku Klux Klan meeting. That's something Christians should always bare in mind when noting that SOME christians aren't such racist mofo gits, as it's just one reason that mistrust of christianity-motivated politicking is not to be trusted as even marginally decent. As for missionary types. Had a couple mormons on my front porch two weeks ago who refused to leave. I was being polite in asking them to leave, & they took the polite tone or the refusal to just slam the door as an invitation to stay & keep jabbering at me in the most offensively religious terms -- & I note this as someone who collects religious texts of all faiths & know a great deal about most of these ideologies. If these had been homeless chaps instead of mormons, being as aggressive asking for spare change as these guys were pitching religion, they could actually be arrested. They kept trying to get me to engage them in some kind of religious debate, & the more I refused the more they insisted. Not until I narrowed my eyes & alluded to them as "trespassing mother****ing gits" did they finally catch my meaning & go away. A week later, another pair of Mormons peered in at my open door & called for my attention. I refused to go to the door, but called back at them from the kitchen to put this address on their "don't bother the godforsaken Jews' house" list. One of the chaps actually said, "Okay," & they left. -paghat the ratgirl They usually approach me when I'm in the garden with my hands full. The last time I recall, they kept trying to shove pamphlets into my hand. I pointed to the trash can and said "Save me a trip, OK?" They kept talking and insisting that I take pamphlets. Finally, I said "Those are made of paper. Paper comes from trees. My god says that if you waste trees, you'll burn in hell." They left. |
"paghat" wrote in message ... In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote: In article , paghat wrote: The one & only place outside of a church where you're GUARANTEED to have 100% Christians is a Ku Klux Klan meeting. Well, no. And the primary force combatting the KKK was Christian. Antichristian bigots like to forget that Martin Luther King was *Rev.* Martin Luther King. billo And bad people who try to coopt the ghosts of good people to their causes hate to note that Martin could & did work well with Jews, agnostics, & all kinds of people, & was poiitically inspired by a Hindu. Everyone from the suffragists in Texas to the negro militia of Georgia fought the KKK, but these few-in-number activists bucked a system in which "good" christians in general did nothing, & the KKK relied on that to thrive. It's why for over 100 years it was not possible for southern courts to find a white man guilty of killing a black person. It remains purely & simply a fact that the one place outside a church you're GUARANTEED to have 100% christians is a Ku Klux Klan rally. You can boast that the black guy they hung that day got nabbed leaving his Baptist church, but that rather evades the point to the highest degree of malice. I'm left waiting for a classier example of where exclusively Christians turn up. Whatever some good Quakers might be doing that's way nicer than that doesn't change the above reality one whit. And even when looking at a decent Christian movement like the Quakers, that doesn't seem ever to make its way into political office. Our last Quaker president was first & foremost a crook in office, who built his career on a foundation of killing a couple Jews cuz they were commies, so that he, Nixon, made his good pal & closet-fag Joe McCarthy seem cuddly by comparison. Separation of church & state is a good idea. Too bad our present stinko president doesn't think so. -paghat the ratgirl I really need to buy you a beer somehow. :-) |
"paghat" wrote in message ... In article , Sheila wrote: You just keep changing the subject! What's up with so many RED cars in those autombile ads? Easy there. You're confusing Sheila. |
"paghat" wrote in message ... In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote: As for missionary types. Had a couple mormons on my front porch two weeks ago who refused to leave. I put my largest, most intimidating dog on the porch when I see the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses in the neighborhood. That always discourages them. |
"Sheila" wrote in message ... I don't accept the government paying for abortions on demand. I don't accept the government paying for superstition and bull shit like "Creationism" being taught in public schools. |
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message ... In article , paghat wrote: The one & only place outside of a church where you're GUARANTEED to have 100% Christians is a Ku Klux Klan meeting. Well, no. And the primary force combatting the KKK was Christian. Antichristian bigots like to forget that Martin Luther King was *Rev.* Martin Luther King. No. You just illustrated that the religion and the "religious right" are two different entities. |
"Sheila" wrote in message
... Doug Kanter wrote: "Sheila" wrote in message ... You haven't answered the question, 'Why should the government pay for it?' For the same reason the government pays for other medical procedures, like hip replacements, or medication for childrens' ear infections. However, I'll add this: The same government should also pay for health education which would help minimize some health disorders, and said education should be completely factual & not influenced by church committees. So you believe in taking from one group to give to another, even to the point of taking innocent lives. Two separate issues. "taking from one group...." refers to who should pay for ALL medical procedures, including setting broken bones, eye exams and abortions. Because of the economic structure of this country, there will ALWAYS be people who cannot afford health insurance, so you'd better get used to the idea unless you have a better solution. What do you suppose a hotel room would cost if the maids were paid $35,000.00 per year? How about the lower paid kitchen staff in restaurants? Are you ready for an $11.00 hamburger at your typical diner? How about a 3 lb bag of carrots for $8.00? As long as menial work needs to be done, the government will have to pay for health insurance for millions of people. There are not as many uninsured people as you believe. Really? How many do YOU think there are? A ballpark guess will suffice. And, what's the difference anyway? If there are 1000 in this entire country, they deserve to receive assistance, especially if they're working their tails off like the rest of us and still unable to make ends meet. "Taking innocent lives" is not connected with the financial issue. You either accept government supported health care IN GENERAL, or you don't. I don't accept the government paying for abortions on demand. I don't accept the government paying for injuries incurred when morons don't wear eye protection while using power tools. But, I accept it because it's not the government's place to judge how people ended up the way they are. My ex-wife's Unitarian church ran a series of sex ed classes which were very explicit. They honored parents' wishes through a real high tech scheme which involved typing and printing things on paper - quite revolutionary. All parents were given VERY detailed copies of each week's lesson plan so they could keep their kids out of certain classes if they wished to do so. Why couldn't public schools do this, rather than have the typical all-or-nothing wars which seem to be the hobby of the fundamentalists? Well, when I grew up, parents taught their children about sex. I think that is where it should be taught today too. Let schools teach real subjects. SOME parents teach their kids about sex. Of that group, some are idiots and teach their kids things which are simply incorrect. Not the morals, but the scientific facts. That's how you end up with unwanted pregnancies. You can't scream about abortion *and* try to stamp out information which will help lower the abortion rate. Sorry. It's immature to think that way. No, it's not immature to thing that way. Sex education at school seems to encourage sexual activity, not just educate. It makes it much harder for girl's to so 'no' to a guy today. OK. That last paragraph is precious. Could you please provide at least two sources (web links, scientific journals) for that ridiculous information, preferably sources NOT connected with any religious organization? By the way, some say I attribute too much to linguistic skills, but your inclusion of an apostrophe in "girl's" reveals a lot about you. |
"Vox Humana" wrote in message ... "Sheila" wrote in message ... I don't accept the government paying for abortions on demand. I don't accept the government paying for superstition and bull shit like "Creationism" being taught in public schools. Touché. Especially when the bullshit comes from a book written by HUMANS. |
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:17:12 -0400, Sheila
wrote: dykerider wrote: "Helen Crames" wrote in message news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01... Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control? Helen Not if the government pays for it. Why should the government pay for it? Sheila Pay now or pay later, lots cheaper to abort than try to educate and socialize an idjet |
In article ,
paghat wrote: And bad people who try to coopt the ghosts of good people to their causes hate to note that Martin could & did work well with Jews, agnostics, & all kinds of people, & was poiitically inspired by a Hindu. And bigots forget that this is not uncommon in Christians. billo |
In article ,
Vox Humana wrote: No. You just illustrated that the religion and the "religious right" are two different entities. No. Reducing any group to a one dimensional stereotype with statements like "There are only two issues that concern the religious right - sex, and sex." is bigotry. I don't expect you to comprehend that conservative Christians are not all fundamentalists and don't all fit your bigoted stereotype. Bigots like you will rarely face their bigotry. billo |
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message ... In article , Vox Humana wrote: No. You just illustrated that the religion and the "religious right" are two different entities. No. Reducing any group to a one dimensional stereotype with statements like "There are only two issues that concern the religious right - sex, and sex." is bigotry. I don't expect you to comprehend that conservative Christians are not all fundamentalists and don't all fit your bigoted stereotype. Bigots like you will rarely face their bigotry. The religious right spends the vast majority of its time address issues of sex. Sex education, gay issues, abortion, and so on. They are anti-feminist because of sexual issues. Sadly, they have defined themselves as one-dimensional. |
When you can't debate with facts on your side, people always turn to
insults. That is what you are doing. |
Vox Humana wrote: "Sheila" wrote in message ... I don't accept the government paying for abortions on demand. I don't accept the government paying for superstition and bull shit like "Creationism" being taught in public schools. It's no different than teaching evolution. That's what I was taught, although I don't believe that my ancestors were monkeys. |
Doug Kanter wrote: "Vox Humana" wrote in message ... "Sheila" wrote in message ... I don't accept the government paying for abortions on demand. I don't accept the government paying for superstition and bull shit like "Creationism" being taught in public schools. Touché. Especially when the bullshit comes from a book written by HUMANS. Well, to each his own! I'll stick with my belief system and you stick with yours. |
Doug Kanter wrote: "Sheila" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Sheila" wrote in message ... You haven't answered the question, 'Why should the government pay for it?' For the same reason the government pays for other medical procedures, like hip replacements, or medication for childrens' ear infections. However, I'll add this: The same government should also pay for health education which would help minimize some health disorders, and said education should be completely factual & not influenced by church committees. So you believe in taking from one group to give to another, even to the point of taking innocent lives. Two separate issues. "taking from one group...." refers to who should pay for ALL medical procedures, including setting broken bones, eye exams and abortions. Because of the economic structure of this country, there will ALWAYS be people who cannot afford health insurance, so you'd better get used to the idea unless you have a better solution. What do you suppose a hotel room would cost if the maids were paid $35,000.00 per year? How about the lower paid kitchen staff in restaurants? Are you ready for an $11.00 hamburger at your typical diner? How about a 3 lb bag of carrots for $8.00? As long as menial work needs to be done, the government will have to pay for health insurance for millions of people. There are not as many uninsured people as you believe. Really? How many do YOU think there are? A ballpark guess will suffice. And, what's the difference anyway? The vast majority of people without insurance are either in between jobs or don't work at all. If there are 1000 in this entire country, they deserve to receive assistance, especially if they're working their tails off like the rest of us and still unable to make ends meet. Does someone who doesn't work and is able really DESERVE to take money from the rest of us for anything! I'm not talking about those that really can't work, but most welfare recipients are very able to work. "Taking innocent lives" is not connected with the financial issue. You either accept government supported health care IN GENERAL, or you don't. I don't accept the government paying for abortions on demand. I don't accept the government paying for injuries incurred when morons don't wear eye protection while using power tools. But, I accept it because it's not the government's place to judge how people ended up the way they are. It's not the same thing at all. My ex-wife's Unitarian church ran a series of sex ed classes which were very explicit. They honored parents' wishes through a real high tech scheme which involved typing and printing things on paper - quite revolutionary. All parents were given VERY detailed copies of each week's lesson plan so they could keep their kids out of certain classes if they wished to do so. Why couldn't public schools do this, rather than have the typical all-or-nothing wars which seem to be the hobby of the fundamentalists? Well, when I grew up, parents taught their children about sex. I think that is where it should be taught today too. Let schools teach real subjects. SOME parents teach their kids about sex. Of that group, some are idiots and teach their kids things which are simply incorrect. Not the morals, but the scientific facts. That's how you end up with unwanted pregnancies. You can't scream about abortion *and* try to stamp out information which will help lower the abortion rate. Sorry. It's immature to think that way. No, it's not immature to thing that way. Sex education at school seems to encourage sexual activity, not just educate. It makes it much harder for girl's to so 'no' to a guy today. OK. That last paragraph is precious. Could you please provide at least two sources (web links, scientific journals) for that ridiculous information, preferably sources NOT connected with any religious organization? By the way, some say I attribute too much to linguistic skills, but your inclusion of an apostrophe in "girl's" reveals a lot about you. Yep, when you have no arguments then pick out an error in typing or spelling or putting an apostrophe in the wrong place. Insults replace the need to have valid arguments. I have lived and I have grandchildren and friends with grandchildren, so I do know what is going on. Experience counts you know. |
remove munged wrote: On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:17:12 -0400, Sheila wrote: dykerider wrote: "Helen Crames" wrote in message news:pgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01... Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control? Helen Not if the government pays for it. Why should the government pay for it? Sheila Pay now or pay later, lots cheaper to abort than try to educate and socialize an idjet So, it's OK to abort a child? |
In article ,
Vox Humana wrote: The religious right spends the vast majority of its time address issues of sex. Sex education, gay issues, abortion, and so on. They are anti-feminist because of sexual issues. Sadly, they have defined themselves as one-dimensional. No. Bigot. billo |
In article , Sheila
wrote: Vox Humana wrote: "Sheila" wrote in message ... I don't accept the government paying for abortions on demand. I don't accept the government paying for superstition and bull shit like "Creationism" being taught in public schools. It's no different than teaching evolution. That's what I was taught, although I don't believe that my ancestors were monkeys. Nor does anything about Evolution suppose that your ancestors were monkeys, so clearly you weren't educated on this topic even at even the simplest entry-level! Now Faith can be a poetic thing, but the desire of the Faithful to remain ignorant of science, deny science, misrepresent science, & attempt to stop the teaching of science, suggests that their own faith is a very tiny thing. Honest to gosh FAITH is an end in itself that requires no proofs -- the moment you require proof, or deplore proof to the contrary for some baseless religious sentiment, you have shown a tepid faith or a lack of faith. It takes no faith to believe in scientific ideas of Evolution or the age of the earth or any number of things that tepidly faithful fundamentalists deplore. Scientific method is capable of testing a premise & improving on the testing methods as knowledge increases. Physics for instance isn't an alternative theory to "God did it," its just a practical method of defining what is real. By comparison there is no evidence that God exists & in all reasonable likelihood there never can be evidence. But Faith requires no evidence or it wouldn't be Faith. If you ever do acquire a solid Faith, you'll discover that science & practicality & reality are not rivals of Faith, ook ook! -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Vox Humana" wrote in message ... "Sheila" wrote in message ... I don't accept the government paying for abortions on demand. I don't accept the government paying for superstition and bull shit like "Creationism" being taught in public schools. Touché. Especially when the bullshit comes from a book written by HUMANS. Which bullshit book do you have in mind? The Vedas & Upanishads? The Koran? Rebi Kordova's The Palm Tree of Deborah? The Talmud? The Descent of Inanna? Oh right, the Bible. It's a FASCINATING compendium, one of the greatest literary works of all time, & only as bullshitty as the other of the top-ten works of literature since literacy began. I mean criminy, do you know the story of why Tamar posed as a harlot to get knocked up by her father-in-law, at risk of being stoned to death; & why this made her more righteous than Judah? It's just one of hundreds of deeply profound beautiful & strange tales with psychological complexity & heroism. All our favorite genres are in there somewhere. Humanity is a stinking eruption on the face of the planet that destroys everything in its path, & if ANYthing justifies our appalling existance, it is this very capacity to create such art & poetry that is Torah. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
"Sheila" wrote in message ... Vox Humana wrote: "Sheila" wrote in message ... I don't accept the government paying for abortions on demand. I don't accept the government paying for superstition and bull shit like "Creationism" being taught in public schools. It's no different than teaching evolution. That's what I was taught, although I don't believe that my ancestors were monkeys. You may have been taught evolution, but apparently you didn't learn anything. |
In article , Sheila
wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: OK. That last paragraph is precious. Could you please provide at least two sources (web links, scientific journals) for that ridiculous information, preferably sources NOT connected with any religious organization? By the way, some say I attribute too much to linguistic skills, but your inclusion of an apostrophe in "girl's" reveals a lot about you. Yep, when you have no arguments then pick out an error in typing or spelling or putting an apostrophe in the wrong place. Insults replace the need to have valid arguments. Conversely, when you have no basis for silly assertions, whining & whinging about feeling insulted replaces debate, even invalid debate. I have lived and I have grandchildren and friends with grandchildren, so I do know what is going on. Experience counts you know. If you had valid arguments, you could have focused more on the request for evidence of an assertion that on the surface appeared assinine & incorrect. If you had any evidence for your amazingly silly assertions, you would've provided it, instead of saying you're old & you just know. Your assertion was that sex education "encourage sexual activity" and "makes it harder for girl's [sic] to say 'no' to a guy." I echo Doug's request: where do you get this crap? Out of your ass? Because here is the truth, according to the US Teenage Pregnancy Statistics Special Report, & the "Survey of Sex Education Provision in Secondary Schools" from the organization AVERT which is struggling to lower the incidence of HIV & AIDS in teenage childrne. Less than half the schools in America have adequate sex education. The better the sex education program, the lower the teenage pregnancy rate. Less sex education, more teenage pregnancy. WITH sex education there is a loweredincidence of HIV and AIDS. Without adequate sex education fewer girls learn "relationship negotiation skills" which arm them with a far BETTER chance of saying "no," avoiding date-rape, & getting home without a venereal disease. Deal with this: Those who oppose adequate sex education in the schools destroy the lives of children whose lives didn't need to be destroyed. Our current president pandering to the religious right & perhaps his own idea of God has sided with those who are fighting AGAINST adequate sex education, without regard for what would actually protect children. So he too is a danger to children. And yes, some people will want to just insult you for deploring what protects children best, quite justifiably insulted too. But be glad about it because it gives you a chance to whine & whing that you were insulted, rather than learning & growing sufficiently that you will no longer be promoting mistruths & misguided notions that endanger even your own vaunted grandchildren. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
"paghat" wrote in message ... In article , Sheila wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: OK. That last paragraph is precious. Could you please provide at least two sources (web links, scientific journals) for that ridiculous information, preferably sources NOT connected with any religious organization? By the way, some say I attribute too much to linguistic skills, but your inclusion of an apostrophe in "girl's" reveals a lot about you. Yep, when you have no arguments then pick out an error in typing or spelling or putting an apostrophe in the wrong place. Insults replace the need to have valid arguments. Conversely, when you have no basis for silly assertions, whining & whinging about feeling insulted replaces debate, even invalid debate. I have lived and I have grandchildren and friends with grandchildren, so I do know what is going on. Experience counts you know. If you had valid arguments, you could have focused more on the request for evidence of an assertion that on the surface appeared assinine & incorrect. If you had any evidence for your amazingly silly assertions, you would've provided it, instead of saying you're old & you just know. Your assertion was that sex education "encourage sexual activity" and "makes it harder for girl's [sic] to say 'no' to a guy." I echo Doug's request: where do you get this crap? Out of your ass? Because here is the truth, according to the US Teenage Pregnancy Statistics Special Report, & the "Survey of Sex Education Provision in Secondary Schools" from the organization AVERT which is struggling to lower the incidence of HIV & AIDS in teenage childrne. Less than half the schools in America have adequate sex education. The better the sex education program, the lower the teenage pregnancy rate. Less sex education, more teenage pregnancy. WITH sex education there is a loweredincidence of HIV and AIDS. Without adequate sex education fewer girls learn "relationship negotiation skills" which arm them with a far BETTER chance of saying "no," avoiding date-rape, & getting home without a venereal disease. Deal with this: Those who oppose adequate sex education in the schools destroy the lives of children whose lives didn't need to be destroyed. Our current president pandering to the religious right & perhaps his own idea of God has sided with those who are fighting AGAINST adequate sex education, without regard for what would actually protect children. So he too is a danger to children. And yes, some people will want to just insult you for deploring what protects children best, quite justifiably insulted too. But be glad about it because it gives you a chance to whine & whing that you were insulted, rather than learning & growing sufficiently that you will no longer be promoting mistruths & misguided notions that endanger even your own vaunted grandchildren. In addition to what you said, I would like to point out how stupid the assertion is that it is the female's responsibility to say "no" or that she should want to say "no." Why would sex education only impact the behavior of the female, causing her to lose the ability to resist the mating call of the male? I think that placing blame on females is symptomatic of the religious rights attitudes towards women. |
paghat wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "Vox Humana" wrote in message ... "Sheila" wrote in message ... I don't accept the government paying for abortions on demand. I don't accept the government paying for superstition and bull shit like "Creationism" being taught in public schools. Touché. Especially when the bullshit comes from a book written by HUMANS. Which bullshit book do you have in mind? The Vedas & Upanishads? The Koran? Rebi Kordova's The Palm Tree of Deborah? The Talmud? The Descent of Inanna? Oh right, the Bible. It's a FASCINATING compendium, one of the greatest literary works of all time, & only as bullshitty as the other of the top-ten works of literature since literacy began. I mean criminy, do you know the story of why Tamar posed as a harlot to get knocked up by her father-in-law, at risk of being stoned to death; & why this made her more righteous than Judah? It's just one of hundreds of deeply profound beautiful & strange tales with psychological complexity & heroism. All our favorite genres are in there somewhere. Humanity is a stinking eruption on the face of the planet that destroys everything in its path, & if ANYthing justifies our appalling existance, it is this very capacity to create such art & poetry that is Torah. -paghat the ratgirl I think you are answering Doug Kanter, not me, as I haven't called anything 'bullshit'. |
paghat wrote: In article , Sheila wrote: Vox Humana wrote: "Sheila" wrote in message ... I don't accept the government paying for abortions on demand. I don't accept the government paying for superstition and bull shit like "Creationism" being taught in public schools. It's no different than teaching evolution. That's what I was taught, although I don't believe that my ancestors were monkeys. Well, some were taught one thing and some people were taught others. Nor does anything about Evolution suppose that your ancestors were monkeys, so clearly you weren't educated on this topic even at even the simplest entry-level! Now Faith can be a poetic thing, but the desire of the Faithful to remain ignorant of science, deny science, misrepresent science, & attempt to stop the teaching of science, suggests that their own faith is a very tiny thing. I also believe in science do not deny, misrepresent or attempt to stop the teaching of science. As a matter of fact I think teaching science is a good thing. I just don't happen to believe in evolution. Honest to gosh FAITH is an end in itself that requires no proofs -- the moment you require proof, or deplore proof to the contrary for some baseless religious sentiment, you have shown a tepid faith or a lack of faith. It takes no faith to believe in scientific ideas of Evolution or the age of the earth or any number of things that tepidly faithful fundamentalists deplore. Scientific method is capable of testing a premise & improving on the testing methods as knowledge increases. Physics for instance isn't an alternative theory to "God did it," its just a practical method of defining what is real. By comparison there is no evidence that God exists & in all reasonable likelihood there never can be evidence. But Faith requires no evidence or it wouldn't be Faith. If you ever do acquire a solid Faith, you'll discover that science & practicality & reality are not rivals of Faith, ook ook! Never did I say that science and practicality and reality are rivals of Faith. I'm a very practical person and I believe in reality, also in action and reaction. Where did you ever get the idea that I didn't? -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
Vox Humana wrote: "Sheila" wrote in message ... Vox Humana wrote: "Sheila" wrote in message ... I don't accept the government paying for abortions on demand. I don't accept the government paying for superstition and bull shit like "Creationism" being taught in public schools. It's no different than teaching evolution. That's what I was taught, although I don't believe that my ancestors were monkeys. You may have been taught evolution, but apparently you didn't learn anything. Just resort to insults when you can't debate! |
"Sheila" wrote in message ... Vox Humana wrote: "Sheila" wrote in message ... Vox Humana wrote: "Sheila" wrote in message ... I don't accept the government paying for abortions on demand. I don't accept the government paying for superstition and bull shit like "Creationism" being taught in public schools. It's no different than teaching evolution. That's what I was taught, although I don't believe that my ancestors were monkeys. You may have been taught evolution, but apparently you didn't learn anything. Just resort to insults when you can't debate! It is an observation. If you learned anything about evolution you wouldn't have made that ignorant statement about moneys. That statement is right out of the fundamentalist talking points memo. Furthermore, you haven't engaged in debate. You make fantastic claims about sex education and when asked for sources to support you assertions, you totally ignore the request, choosing instead to feign some misunderstand of who the request is directed toward. You also avoid debate by snipping all relevant information and then posting some message that appears to be selected at random, having no context and which is completely unresponsive. So don't even try to lecture me on debate until you come to terms with your intellectual dishonesty. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter